MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_6BF0C6CCE6C6
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial.
Journal
European Heart Journal
ISSN
0195-668X (Print)
ISSN-L
0195-668X
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2008
Volume
29
Number
4
Pages
480-489
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Clinical Trial, Phase II ; Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Multicenter Study ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
AIMS: To determine in a multicentre, multivendor trial the diagnostic performance for perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance (perfusion-CMR) in comparison with coronary X-ray angiography (CXA) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients from 18 centres, 234 were randomly dosed with 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, or 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA-BMA (Omniscantrade mark, GE-Healthcare) per stress (0.42 mg/kg adenosine) and rest perfusion study. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as diameter stenosis > or =50% on quantitative CXA. Five CMR and eight SPECT studies (of 225 complete studies) were excluded from analyses due to inadequate quality (three blinded readers scored per modality). The comparison of CMR vs. SPECT was based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Perfusion-CMR at the optimal CM dose (0.1 mmol/kg) had similar performance as SPECT, if only the SPECT studies of the 42 patients with this dose were considered [area under ROC curve (AUC): 0.86 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.09 for SPECT, P = 0.12]; however, diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR was better vs. the entire SPECT population (AUC: 0.67 +/- 0.05, n = 212, P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, multivendor trial, ROC analyses suggest perfusion-CMR as a valuable alternative to SPECT for CAD detection showing equal performance in the head-to-head comparison. Comparing perfusion-CMR with the entire SPECT population suggests CMR superiority over SPECT, which warrants further evaluation in larger trials.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients from 18 centres, 234 were randomly dosed with 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, or 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA-BMA (Omniscantrade mark, GE-Healthcare) per stress (0.42 mg/kg adenosine) and rest perfusion study. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as diameter stenosis > or =50% on quantitative CXA. Five CMR and eight SPECT studies (of 225 complete studies) were excluded from analyses due to inadequate quality (three blinded readers scored per modality). The comparison of CMR vs. SPECT was based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Perfusion-CMR at the optimal CM dose (0.1 mmol/kg) had similar performance as SPECT, if only the SPECT studies of the 42 patients with this dose were considered [area under ROC curve (AUC): 0.86 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.09 for SPECT, P = 0.12]; however, diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR was better vs. the entire SPECT population (AUC: 0.67 +/- 0.05, n = 212, P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, multivendor trial, ROC analyses suggest perfusion-CMR as a valuable alternative to SPECT for CAD detection showing equal performance in the head-to-head comparison. Comparing perfusion-CMR with the entire SPECT population suggests CMR superiority over SPECT, which warrants further evaluation in larger trials.
Keywords
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis, Coronary Artery Disease/radionuclide imaging, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Angiography/methods, Male, Middle Aged, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon/methods
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
07/09/2011 17:59
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:26